Comment

The differences I see is in the Junior and woman divisions. Is that what your talking about?

Masters, adv masters, int women and Jr boys have different ratings then Open, adv, and intermediate... For example Mark Kilmer threw a 53 at riverside (3rd round) in the Masters division that rated a 974, and Bill Clark threw the same 53 at riverside in the pro division and his rating was a 926.

Comment

Adv grandmasters is also different then Open,adv, & intermediate.. I don't know a lot about entering numbers into the pdga site, so the only thing i can think of is that the numbers were entered as if half the competitors played one course while the half played another. I don't know, something isn't right.

Comment

Masters, adv masters, int women and Jr boys have different ratings then Open, adv, and intermediate... For example Mark Kilmer threw a 53 at riverside (3rd round) in the Masters division that rated a 974, and Bill Clark threw the same 53 at riverside in the pro division and his rating was a 926.

That discrepancy doesn't (potentially) get fixed until the 'official' ratings. The PDGA compares the results for subsequent rounds on the same layout, and makes a determination as to if the results are 'close enough' to be combined for SSA and round rating purposes. If so, in the 'official' ratings, the same score each round will have the same rating. If not, in the 'official' ratings, the rounds will be rated as they are right now, with the same score in different rounds having a different rating. The PDGA has not published what their criteria is for determining 'close enough', but I would guess that a 48-point swing, providing a reasonable field size (number of propagators) is probably a statistically-significant difference in scoring spread (i.e. the rounds won't be combined). Unless perhaps there are other rounds that are coming out in that gap?

Comment

That discrepancy doesn't (potentially) get fixed until the 'official' ratings. The PDGA compares the results for subsequent rounds on the same layout, and makes a determination as to if the results are 'close enough' to be combined for SSA and round rating purposes. If so, in the 'official' ratings, the same score each round will have the same rating. If not, in the 'official' ratings, the rounds will be rated as they are right now, with the same score in different rounds having a different rating. The PDGA has not published what their criteria is for determining 'close enough', but I would guess that a 48-point swing, providing a reasonable field size (number of propagators) is probably a statistically-significant difference in scoring spread (i.e. the rounds won't be combined). Unless perhaps there are other rounds that are coming out in that gap?

Ok, but what I'm saying is that two people with the same score on the same round ares rated differently. How is that possible?

Comment

Ok, but what I'm saying is that two people with the same score on the same round ares rated differently. How is that possible?

Did they play the same course and layout (with the same rules) at the same time? If so, that would be an error with the TD report. In the TD report, the TD must specifically label which division(s) played which course(s) (and layouts) each round.. and may have made a mistake there. Does that help at all?

Comment

Did they play the same course and layout (with the same rules) at the same time? If so, that would be an error with the TD report. In the TD report, the TD must specifically label which division(s) played which course(s) (and layouts) each round.. and may have made a mistake there. Does that help at all?

Everyone played the same course, same layout, and at the same time for all 3 rounds.

Comment

..and that's the case for rounds 2&3, but not round 1. All 3 rounds were on 3 different courses, so the ratings changing from one round to the next is understandable.

Was the event split into different pools, though? e.g. pool A plays course A in round 1, while pool B plays course B? Then they switch for round 2? If so, the ('unofficial') ratings are coming out just as they should, with the same score potentially having a very different rating. That *may* get fixed during the 'official' ratings process, depending on if the PDGA deems the round 1 pool A group played on course A was 'close enough' to the conditions that round 2 pool B played on that same course.

Sorry if I'm confusing you.. I don't know anything about how that specific event was organized.

Comment

Everyone played the same course, same layout, and the same time for all 3 rounds.

I guess I'm just wondering if its something that needs to be fixed?

Oh.. then yes, providing each division played under the same rules (e.g. sometimes MA3 divisions have lessened OB penalties or use different tees), the same score for the round absolutely should come out with the same rating. That would definitely be a problem with the TD report.

Comment

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCunique View PostEveryone played the same course, same layout, and the same time for all 3 rounds.

I guess I'm just wondering if its something that needs to be fixed?

++

Oh.. then yes, providing each division played under the same rules (e.g. sometimes MA3 divisions have lessened OB penalties or use different tees), the same score for the round absolutely should come out with the same rating. That would definitely be a problem with the TD report.

Comment

When a TD sanctions an event the PDGA sends the TD a code which enables him/her to access the admin part of the PDGA website for their event. It's up to the TD to input the different courses and/or course layouts into the system and to define which course/layout each division is playing in each round. Everyone playing a particular course at the same time will get the same rating for the same score. It appears that from what players are posting in this thread that everyone played the same exact courses at the same time. It's important to note that if a division is playing the same course but has a shortened tee for even just one hole then that's considered a different course. So, if everyone played the same courses then Gene McConnell's third round 62 (rated 885) in the Adv. Masters division should have been rated the same at James McLaughlin's 62 (rated 820) in the intermediate division. This can be fixed anytime the TD is motivated to sign onto the website and input the correct information. The same can be said for misspelled names and incorrect PDGA numbers. Not sure how to spell someone's name? If their PDGA number is there then just click on their name and bingo, you've got it.

Comment

Thanks Eric for the explanation! I am not fully aware of the complications of being a TD. A fix to this would be super appreciated, Mark. I'm interested to see what the actual ratings look like. Thanks for everything.

Kenny

Comment

It looks like the course pars were entered differently for some divisions. The pars should be 57, 57, and 54. Not all of the divisions +, -, add up correctly. It would be nice to know what the correct ratings are. I feel that waiting on ratings takes away from an event.